The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage
Open accessAbstract
Several microorganisms and one chemical preservative were tested for their effects on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. Whole-plant corn (one-half milk line, 31.3% dry matter) was ensiled in quadruplicate 20-L laboratory silos untreated or after the following treatments: Lactobacillus buchneri at 1 x 10(5) and 1 x 10(6) cfu/g of fresh forage; two different strains of L. plantarum, each at 1 x 10(6) cfu/g; and a buffered propionic acid-based product at 0.1% of fresh forage weight. After 100 d of ensiling, silage treated with L. buchneri (1 x 10(6) cfu/g) had a lower concentration of lactic acid compared with the untreated silage, but was similar to other treated silages. The silage treated with the high (1 x 10(6) cfu/g), but not the moderate rate (1 x 10(5) cfu/g) of L. buchneri also had a greater concentration of acetic acid (3.60%) and less yeasts (2.01 log cfu/g) when compared with other treatments (average of 1.88% acetic acid and 5.85 log cfu of yeasts/g). Silages treated with L. plantarums, the moderate rate of L. buchneri, and the chemical preservative took longer to heat than untreated silage when exposed to air, but improvements were numerically small (6.3 to 10.5 h). In contrast, silage treated with the high rate of L. buchneri never heated throughout a 900-h period of monitoring. Inoculating corn silage with 1 x 10(6) cfu/g of L. buchneri resulted in a more heterolactic fermentation and dramatically improved the aerobic stability of corn silage.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
47 Own result · 15 Own interpretation · 6 No full text of the sources · 5 Own method · 4 Sources not found · 4 No basis given · 3 Not checked yet · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For example, applying propionic acid-based additives have enhanced the aerobic stability of corn silage (11).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [11] Kung, 1998, The effect of preservatives based on propionic acid on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage and a total mixed ration, J. Dairy Sci. source
The Abstract reports that propionic acid-based preservatives increased the aerobic stability of treated corn silage in all three experiments. The Discussion likewise reports improvements of 17–57 hours in Experiments 1 and 2 and more than 90 hours in Experiment 3. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In a previous study from our lab (11), similar amounts of SM (0.1%) improved the aerobic stability of corn silage from 12 to 24 h depending on the experiment.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [11] Kung, 1998, The effect of preservatives based on propionic acid on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage and a total mixed ration, J. Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 7 shows that 0.1% Storage-Mate II-liquid increased aerobic stability by 15 h in Experiment 1 and 12 h in Experiment 2; the dry formulation increased it by 24 h in Experiment 2. But 0.1% Storage-Mate II-dry reduced stability from 65 to 52 h in Experiment 1, so the claim that 0.1% Storage-Mate improved stability across experiments omits a contrary result. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After 100 d of ensiling, silage treated with L. buchneri (1 × 10 6 cfu/g) had a lower concentration of lactic acid compared with the untreated silage, but was similar to other treated silages.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, silage treated with the high rate of L. buchneri never heated throughout a 900-h period of monitoring.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The silage treated with the high (1 × 10 6 cfu/g), but not the moderate rate (1 × 10 5 cfu/g) of L. buchneri also had a greater concentration of acetic acid (3.60%) and less yeasts (2.01 log cfu/g) when compared with other treatments (average of 1.88% acetic acid and 5.85 log cfu of yeasts/g).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The silage treated with the high (1 × 10 6 cfu/g), but not the moderate rate (1 × 10 5 cfu/g) of L. buchneri also had a greater concentration of acetic acid (3.60%) and less yeasts (2.01 log cfu/g) when compared with other treatments (average of 1.88% acetic acid and 5.85 log cfu of yeasts/g).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, silage treated with LB10, but not LB, had markedly increased (P < 0.05) acetic acid (3.60%).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Silage Composition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yeasts were reduced dramatically (P < 0.05) in the silage inoculated with LB10 (2.01 log 10 cfu/g) compared with the untreated silage (6.05 log 10 cfu/g) (Table 2).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Silage Composition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The silage treated with the moderate rate of L. buchneri (LB) did not begin to heat until 10 h after the untreated silage.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Silages treated with the high rate of L. buchneri (LB10) and propionic acid-based preservative (SM) had lower (P < 0.05) concentrations of total lactate than did untreated silage.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Silage Composition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In general, the chemical and microbiological composition of the untreated silage was within the expected range (11,12).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [11] Kung, 1998, The effect of preservatives based on propionic acid on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage and a total mixed ration, J. Dairy Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Silage Composition section (page unavailable) says the pH of the silages, including the untreated control, was typical of normal corn silage. Tables 4–7 report chemical measurements and yeast counts for the controls, but the paper does not establish that their overall chemical and microbiological composition was within an expected range. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked yetcites [12] Mahanna, 1997, Troubleshooting silage problems with “Seed to feed” considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Silages treated with L. plantarums, the moderate rate of L. buchneri, and the chemical preservative took longer to heat than untreated silage when exposed to air, but improvements were numerically small (6.3 to 10.5 h).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, we did not observe either of these phenomena and we observed changes in acetic acid concentrations only from the high (1 × 10 6 cfu/g), and not the moderate (1 × 10 5 cfu/g), rate of L. buchneri.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, SM improved the aerobic stability of corn silage by 10.5 h and was consistent with previous findings.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with the untreated silage, aerobic stability was improved (P < 0.05) in all the treated silages but some of the actual differences were small, while some were dramatic.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Aerobic Stability of Undisturbed Silage
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For silages that were frequently sampled, the DM losses after 2 d of aerobic exposure in the remainder of the treatments were 2.7 to 4.0 percentage units greater compared with the silage treated with LB10, but these differences were statistically not significant.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the high rate of inoculation dramatically de- creased the numbers of yeast, and doubled the concentration of acetate (from 1.82 to 3.60% of DM) compared with the untreated silage.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the aerobic stability of silage treated with LP4 was improved by only 6.3 h and SM improved stability by 10.5 h when compared to untreated silage.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Aerobic Stability of Undisturbed Silage
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Silage inoculated with a moderate rate of L. buchneri (1 × 10 5 cfu/g of forage) or the strains of L. plantarum enhanced the aerobic stability of the corn silage, but the effect was small.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the exception of silage treated with LB10, all silages were markedly spoiled and thus sampling ceased after 3 d of exposure to air.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This silage had a Flieg's score of 87, primarily because of the greater concentration of acetic acid.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, WSC constituted only a fraction of the total DM and, therefore, after 3 d of exposure to air the greatest DM loss was still less than 10%.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the high inoculation rate of L. buchneri caused a decrease in the L-lactate to D-lactate ratio, but this was a result of production of lesser amount of L-lactate.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After 6 d of aerobic exposure, silage treated with LB10 had an acetate concentration of almost 5% of DM whereas by 3 d of exposure the acetate concentration of all other silages had decreased to < 0.5%.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Aerobic Stability of Frequently Sampled Silage
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Silages treated with inoculants containing various strains of L. plantarum had numerically lower yeast, molds, lactate, ethanol, and ammonia than did untreated silage but none of these differences were statistically different.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > CONCLUSIONS
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the silage treated with LB10 had a lower score, it had a much greater aerobic stability and recovery of nutrients upon its aerobic exposure.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of yeasts in the forages varied (P < 0.05) among the treatments with the untreated forage containing 7.06 log 10 cfu/g.Silage treated with LB10 contained the lowest (P < 0.05) inoculum density of yeast (5.86 log 10 cfu/g).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Fresh Forage
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This silage contained the lowest (P < 0.05) concentration of L-lac- tate and thus resulted in the lowest (P < 0.05) ratio of L-lactate to D-lactate.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Silage Composition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microbial inoculation with the two strains of L. plantarum in our study did not affect the lactate:acetate ratios and thus did not produce a more homolactic fermentation.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“although to a lesser extent, spoilage can be initiated by molds, bacilli, acetic acid bacteria, and possibly lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (32).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] Woolford, 1990, The detrimental effects of air on silage, J. Appl. Bacteriol. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not measure DM losses from the ensiling process in our study but, because L. buchneri produces a heterolactic fermentation that is less efficient than homolactic fermentation, such losses should be determined in future studies.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The composition of the fresh forage in this experiment was normal for whole-plant corn harvested at one-half milk line.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Improvements in the aerobic stability of corn silages have been reported for various rates of inoculation with L. buchneri, a heterofermentative LAB (5,18).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5] Driehuis, 1996, Improving aerobic stability by inoculation with Lactobacillus buchneri
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [18] Muck, R. E. 1996. A lactic acid bacteria strain to improve aerobic stability of silages. Pages 42–43 in U.S. Dairy Forage Res. Center 1996 Res. Summaries.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Adding beneficial microorganisms (microbial inoculants) to feeds prior to ensiling has improved fermentation (10).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] Kung, 1991, Effect of a microbial inoculant and/or glycopeptide antibiotic on fermentation and aerobic stability of wilted alfalfa silage, Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In recent years, treating silages with L. plantarum strain MTD1 has improved DM intake and milk yield in a number of studies (9).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Kung, 1997, Animal response to silage additives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such a possibility is easy to envision if one considers the multitude of bacteriocin (15) and antifungal compounds (27) that have been identified in various lactobacilli.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Montville, 1993, Antimicrobial proteins: classification, nomenclature, diversity, and relationship to bacteriocins source
- Not checked yetcites [27] Suzuki, 1991, Isolation of lactic acid bacteria which suppress mold growth and show antifungal action, Milchwissenschaft
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All inoculants contained viable microorganisms.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Inoculants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sufficient amounts of each inoculant were applied to forage to obtain the desired rates of inoculation.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Inoculants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The WSC concentration of the fresh forage was high (about 15%) but similar concentrations of WSC have been reported in whole-plant corn (4).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Cai, 1994, The proportion of lactate isomers in farm silage and the influence of inoculation with lactic acid bacteria on the proportion of L-lactate in silage, Anim. Sci. Technol. (Jpn.) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, some strains of L. buchneri are known to produce the biogenic amine, histamine (7), and we have not determined whether the strain of L. buchneri used in the current study produces this amine.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Theoretical homolactic fermentation of 1 mole of hexose yields 2 moles of lactate with a DM recovery of 100% and an energy recovery of 99% (14).”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Silage from the first set of silos that were undisturbed for temperature measurements would not have remained stable with such changes and reemphasizes the fact that frequent sampling accelerated the spoilage process.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these differences were numerically small and would not have affected the subsequent fermentation.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Fresh Forage
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This increase in acetate concentration could not be accounted for by the loss of DM and thus may have been from continued acetate production by L. buchneri during aerobic exposure.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a review of the literature, Muck and Kung (19) reported that inoculation improved aerobic stability in less than 30% of the studies reported between 1990 and 1995.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Muck and Kung (19) Muck, 1997, Effects of silage additives on ensiling
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, silage treated with 1 × 10 6 cfu of L. buchneri/g of fresh forage underwent a very extensive heterolactic fermentation that resulted in a marked enhancement in aerobic stability.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Silage is often subject to varying degrees of aerobic deterioration before and during feeding.
“On many farms, silage is often subject to varying degrees of aerobic deterioration before and during feeding.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Feeds that have undergone aerobic deterioration have reduced nutritional value and present hazards to the environment.
“Feeds that have undergone aerobic deterioration have reduced nutritional value and present hazards to the environment (disposal of spoiled feed).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Propionic acid-based additives may be costly.
“However, such additives may be costly and thus microbial inoculants have been explored as economical alternatives.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Heterolactic fermentation produces acetic acid that is a more potent antimycotic agent than lactic acid.
“Heterolactic fermentation is less efficient in the conservation of nutrients than homolactic fermentation, but it produces acetic acid that is a more potent antimycotic agent than is lactic acid.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Higher application rates of L. buchneri have not been evaluated.
“Higher application rates of L. buchneri have not been evaluated, therefore the effects of L. buchneri inoculation at a moderate (1 × 10 5 cfu/g of fresh forage) and a high (1 × 10 6 cfu/g) rate were compared to inoculation with select L. plantarum strains and a propionic acid-based commercial silage additive.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Inhibition of bacteria via low pH and fungi via the elimination of oxygen are the key factors responsible for making high-quality silage that is stable when exposed to air.
“Inhibition of bacteria (via low pH) and fungi (via the elimination of oxygen) in the process of silage fermentation are the key factors that are responsible for making high-quality silage that is stable when exposed to air.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Addition of homofermentative LAB to forage at ensiling can enhance the fermentation process by producing high concentrations of lactic acid and rapidly reducing the pH of silage.
“Addition of homofermentative LAB to forage at ensiling can enhance the fermentation process by producing high concentrations of lactic acid and rapidly reducing the pH of silage.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Heterolactic fermentation results in energy losses of 1 to 2%, and DM losses vary depending on the substrate and pathway used.
“Heterolactic fermentation results in energy losses of 1 to 2%, but the DM losses vary depending on the substrate and pathway used.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Silages are often exposed to air for prolonged periods, and such exposure can lead to spoilage.
“Silages are often exposed to air for prolonged periods.”
“Poorly packed silage can result in spoiling of silages before feeding.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“In previous studies from our laboratory, untreated corn silage spoiled within 30 to 60 h after exposure to air, but numbers of residual yeast in those studies were between 4 and 5 log 10 cfu/ g (Ranjit and Kung, 2000).”
From The Effect of Delayed Ensiling and Application of a Propionic Acid-Based Additive on the Fermentation of Barley Silage (2002) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“As in past studies, treatment with L. buchneri 40788 and enzymes had no effects on the ADF, NDF, CP, or starch content of silage (Ranjit and Kung, 2000;Kung and Ranjit, 2001).”
From The effect of treating whole-plant barley with Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and nutritive value for dairy cows (2002) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“have shown that Lb. buchneri successfully improves the aerobic stability of a variety of silages”
From Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives (2018) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Treatment with L. buchneri 40788 has also increased the concentrations of propionic acid in some (Driehuis et , 1999a;Kung and Ranjit, 2001) but not all silages (Ranjit and Kung, 2000), and the reason for this finding is unclear at this time.”
From The effect of treating whole-plant barley with Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and nutritive value for dairy cows (2002) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“however, the effects are strain-specific (Muck, 2004;Kleinschmit et al., 2005) and dose-dependent (Ranjit and Kung, 2000;Taylor and Kung, 2002;Filya et al., 2006).”
From Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives (2018) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
In the citing paper
“This study showed a similar effect of inoculation of L. plantarum and L. buchneri on forage fermentation quality to previous research (Ranjit and Kung, 2000; Weinberg et al., 2002).”
From Modulation of Metabolome and Bacterial Community in Whole Crop Corn Silage by Inoculating Homofermentative Lactobacillus plantarum and Heterofermentative Lactobacillus buchneri (2019) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
In the citing paper
“Our previous data with corn silage (Ranjit and Kung, 2000) and barley silage (Kung and Ranjit, 2001) suggests that a higher inoculation rate must be used to obtain consistent effects from L. buchneri 40788.”
From The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of High Moisture Corn in Laboratory Silos (2002) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
In the citing paper
“In contrast, treatment with L. buchneri 40788 did not affect the ammonia concentration of corn silages in past studies (Ranjit and Kung, 2000;Kleinschmit et al., 2005).”
From The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 or Lactobacillus plantarum MTD-1 on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silages ensiled at two dry matter contents (2009) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
In the citing paper
“Ranjit and Kung (2000) reported similar findings in that low levels of buffered propionic acid generally had no effect on silage fermentation.”
From The Effect of Delayed Ensiling and Application of a Propionic Acid-Based Additive on the Fermentation of Barley Silage (2002) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
In the citing paper
“LAB can quickly occupy a dominant position and simplify the complex microbial community in silage”
From Succession of Microbial Communities of Corn Silage Inoculated with Heterofermentative Lactic Acid Bacteria from Ensiling to Aerobic Exposure (2021) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“inhibiting the consumption of raw materials by microorganisms is considered one of the signs of successful silage [48].”
From Succession of Microbial Communities of Corn Silage Inoculated with Heterofermentative Lactic Acid Bacteria from Ensiling to Aerobic Exposure (2021) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“A rapid reduction in lactic acid, alcohol and WSC content, an increase in pH-value and rapidly increasing DM losses are typically found in aerobically deteriorating silages (Honig, 1975;Ranjit and Kung, 2000).”
From Improving aerobic stability and biogas production of maize silage using silage additives (2015) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
In the citing paper
“Aerobic stability of the untreated maize silage can vary largely and values obtained in the present study lie within the range reported by others (e.g.Driehuis et al., 1999;Ranjit and Kung, 2000;Wilkinson and Davies, 2013).”
From Improving aerobic stability and biogas production of maize silage using silage additives (2015) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
In the citing paper
“A markedly increase in acetic acid during exposure to air in silages inoculated with L. buchneri strains have been reported previously and can be attributed to a continuing acetic acid production by L. buchneri under aerobic storage conditions (Ranjit and Kung, 2000).”
From Improving aerobic stability and biogas production of maize silage using silage additives (2015) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
In the citing paper
“Recently, the aerobic stability of a variety of silage crops has been markedly improved by inoculation with a heterolactic acid bacterium, Lactobacillus buchneri.”
From The effect of treating whole-plant barley with Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and nutritive value for dairy cows (2002) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
In the citing paper
“In contrast, and inexplicably, applying L. buchneri 40788 at rates of at least 5 × 10 5 cfu/g of fresh forage were required to elicit similar changes in corn silage (Ranjit and Kung, 2000).”
From The effect of treating whole-plant barley with Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and nutritive value for dairy cows (2002) · cites this paper as Ranjit and Kung, 2000
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Silage Composition
“Flieg's score was the lowest in silage treated with LB10 (89.3) when compared to the untreated silage that had a value of 100.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
“This silage had a Flieg's score of 87, primarily because of the greater concentration of acetic acid.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Silage Composition
“The lactate:acetate ratio was de- Means in columns with unlike superscript differ (P < 0.05).3 Ammonia-N.Water-soluble carbohydrates.creased (P < 0.05) in silages treated with LB10 (1.78:1), LP4 (3.43:1), and SM (3.25:1) when compared with untreated silage.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
“Microbial inoculation with the two strains of L. plantarum in our study did not affect the lactate:acetate ratios and thus did not produce a more homolactic fermentation.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > DISCUSSION
“In contrast, we did not observe either of these phenomena and we observed changes in acetic acid concentrations only from the high (1 × 10 6 cfu/g), and not the moderate (1 × 10 5 cfu/g), rate of L. buchneri.”
§ The Effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a Chemical Preservative on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Corn Silage 1 > Silage Composition
“Silages treated with the high rate of L. buchneri (LB10) and propionic acid-based preservative (SM) had lower (P < 0.05) concentrations of total lactate than did untreated silage.”
Citations
Cites
A PHOTOMETRIC ADAPTATION OF THE SOMOGYI METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF GLUCOSE
Nelson, N. (1944) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(18)71980-7 · Cited by 10,376
Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1967) · Cited by 6,573
Bacteriocins of lactic acid bacteria
Klaenhammer, T. R. (1988) · Biochimie · doi:10.1016/0300-9084(88)90206-4 · Cited by 1,544
McDonald, P. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,473
Biogenic amines and their production by microorganisms in food
Halász, A., Baráth, Á., Simon-Sarkadi, L., & Holzapfel, W. (1994) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/0924-2244(94)90070-1 · Cited by 1,019
Woolford, M. K., & Pahlow, G. (1998) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0309-1_3 · Cited by 400
The detrimental effects of air on silage
Woolford, M. K. (1990) · Journal of Applied Bacteriology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1990.tb02554.x · Cited by 392
Moon, N. J. (1983) · Journal of Applied Bacteriology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1983.tb01685.x · Cited by 374
Microbiological screening of the straight chain fatty acids (c1‐c12) as potential silage additives
Woolford, M. K. (1975) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740260213 · Cited by 259
The effect of applying lactic acid bacteria at ensiling on the aerobic stability of silages
Weinberg, Z. G., Ashbell, G., Hen, Y., & Azrieli, A. (1993) · Journal of Applied Bacteriology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1993.tb01588.x · Cited by 215
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Ataku, 1978, Distribution of lactic acid isomer in silage, J. Jpn. Grassl. Sci., 24, 165
- Jonsson, 1984, Systematic classification and biochemical characterization of yeasts growing in grass silage inoculated with Lactobacillus cultures, Anim. Res. Dev., 20, 7
- Okuda, 1965, A direct colorimetric method for blood ammonia, Tokushima J. Exp. Med., 12, 11
- SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 6 Edition. 1988. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages
Kung, L., Shaver, R. D., Grant, R. J., & Schmidt, R. J. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13909 · Cited by 1,316
Self-citationSilage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives
Muck, R. E., Nadeau, E. M. G., McAllister, T. A., Contreras-Govea, F. E., Santos, M. C., & Kung, L. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13839 · Cited by 1,038
Self-citationThe aerobic stability of silage: key findings and recent developments
Wilkinson, J. M., & Davies, D. R. (2013) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2012.00891.x · Cited by 489
Gallo, A., Giuberti, G., Frisvad, J. C., Bertuzzi, T., & Nielsen, K. F. (2015) · Toxins · doi:10.3390/toxins7083057 · Cited by 361
Kleinschmit, D. H., & Kung, L. (2006) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(06)72444-4 · Cited by 356
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ranjit, N. K., & Kung, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Delaware (US)
- ORCID
- Kung, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 526-535
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2101929749
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 15.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Delaware
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
- Keywords
- corn silage, Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, silage inoculants, aerobic stability, silage fermentation, heterolactic fermentation, lactic acid, acetic acid, yeast contamination
- MeSH terms
- Aerobiosis, Zea mays, Fermentation, Food Preservatives, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Lactobacillus, Silage, Acetic Acid, Lactic Acid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
